Forums

Update Status - 1/14/13 Topic

Posted by harriswb3 on 1/22/2013 7:55:00 PM (view original):I like all this, but it "feels" like this is going to result in bigger advantages for the offense, creating a bit of an "unbalance". That may just be because I have not read, or has not been posted, anything about the defensive formations and player settings.

Good question - I currently am developing a super defense team. Will I be able to plug in players that will counter these offensive specialists? And will we be informed to what attributes do better with outside vs inside offense and defense?

Posted by harriswb3 on 1/22/2013 7:55:00 PM (view original):I like all this, but it "feels" like this is going to result in bigger advantages for the offense, creating a bit of an "unbalance". That may just be because I have not read, or has not been posted, anything about the defensive formations and player settings.

Good question - I currently am developing a super defense team. Will I be able to plug in players that will counter these offensive specialists? And will we be informed to what attributes do better with outside vs inside offense and defense?

Yeah, I asked about the defensive sets awhile back and don't think I received an answer. I mean, what if I want to play man-to-man? Say I have a college D.Revis who is a "shut down" CB. Can I set the defense so that he matches up with the other teams best WR on every play regardless of where that WR lines up? How about inside or outside blitzs? If the offense can control runs inside and out, shouldn't the defense have similar abilities? Just a few of the questions that I have wanted to be addressed.

Posted by harriswb3 on 1/22/2013 7:55:00 PM (view original):I like all this, but it "feels" like this is going to result in bigger advantages for the offense, creating a bit of an "unbalance". That may just be because I have not read, or has not been posted, anything about the defensive formations and player settings.

Good question - I currently am developing a super defense team. Will I be able to plug in players that will counter these offensive specialists? And will we be informed to what attributes do better with outside vs inside offense and defense?

Yeah, I asked about the defensive sets awhile back and don't think I received an answer. I mean, what if I want to play man-to-man? Say I have a college D.Revis who is a "shut down" CB. Can I set the defense so that he matches up with the other teams best WR on every play regardless of where that WR lines up? How about inside or outside blitzs? If the offense can control runs inside and out, shouldn't the defense have similar abilities? Just a few of the questions that I have wanted to be addressed.

On defense, based on what offensive set is coming and, of course, the down/distance, you will get to determine:

1. what formation you want to set up in (like you already do)
2. how much you want to play the run/pass (like you already do but using whole numbers, not the "aggressive/conservative" abstraction)
3. where you want to concentrate your defense (Cover: short, medium, or long)
4. how often you want to blitz
and, in another part of the defensive set up:
5. which guy is likely to do the blitzing.

I have not noticed a way to make man-to-man/zone type decisions other than the sorts of things you can abstract from the controls offered above. I also do not specifically see a way to create or take advantage of talent mismatches.

Posted by choochoo on 1/22/2013 7:59:00 PM (view original):When do teams switch OL during drives? Am I missing something here...why in the world do we need more than one depth chart for OL?

I totally agree.

So, we can switch out OL depending on whether the play is a run or a pass (which is totally ridiculous and unrealistic), but we can't target the receivers we want to on pass plays (which every team from Pop Warner to the NFL does). Makes sense.

Posted by choochoo on 1/22/2013 7:59:00 PM (view original):When do teams switch OL during drives? Am I missing something here...why in the world do we need more than one depth chart for OL?

I totally agree.

So, we can switch out OL depending on whether the play is a run or a pass (which is totally ridiculous and unrealistic), but we can't target the receivers we want to on pass plays (which every team from Pop Warner to the NFL does). Makes sense.

Another big Brad.

I thought one of the big complaints two plus years ago was the hockey like line change on the OL? So this is coming back? But yet as coach I can't tell my QB that WR Smith or TE Jones are the main participants on this play and that WR Brown is a secondary target.

Oh, and we're still not going to be able to isolate our All World DB on the other guys best WR? If that's the case more dissapointment.

I hope I'm wrong but it sounds like the same old crap coming our way. Obviously I will withhold judgement on something I haven't seen yet but what I'm hearing here is none too pleasing.

What I don't understand is why it would be so hard to set up the defense to do different things. Not sure, but I think that you can play man to man in Hoops. All you do is assign the player you want your defender to match up with. This would go along way toward creating some parity for the offense and defense. As it stands now, sounds like the Offense could be light years ahead of the Defense.

Think of this example. Team A has a dual threat QB. Through scouting I have identifed that 85% of the time he runs a QB option on 2nd and 8 or more. Under those circumstances I want to have one of my LBs or maybe even my SS "spy" on him.

Sort of a different topic but in the same vein. Will we be able to identify if we want our DL and LBs to rush inside or outside much like the OL and there blocking? Just interested because the ability to do this could create some very interesting "blitzs"?

Posted by choochoo on 1/22/2013 7:59:00 PM (view original):When do teams switch OL during drives? Am I missing something here...why in the world do we need more than one depth chart for OL?

I totally agree.

So, we can switch out OL depending on whether the play is a run or a pass (which is totally ridiculous and unrealistic), but we can't target the receivers we want to on pass plays (which every team from Pop Warner to the NFL does). Makes sense.

The ability to set up different formation sets with different OL depth charts was not the driving point for the way it is designed, but rather the design allows that to happen. The probability and effectiveness of someone trying to recruit enough OL to have that degree of specialization is low enough that I don't feel we need restrictions on it.

Personnel changes on field already have issues with being unrealistic, so I think this is more a matter of working on that all at once if we feel it adds to the game.

You can control who you throw to, but it's a combination of formation sets and depth charts, not just setting it for each formation. The only difference between 1.0 and 3.0 will be that your backup WR when he comes in will be targeted the same as the starter, and that's something we can work on modifying if we find it is a problem.

As far as offense having an advantage, they do have an advantage only because defense is set against each offensive formation while offense can run multiple plays out of each formation. I'm concerned about adding defensive settings only because there are already so many settings you have to set. I'd like to get these offensive and defensive settings working first and then look at expanding them. If it becomes apparent that defense is way outclassed against offense during beta, then we might look at adding some features then. Otherwise, I would like to hold off on them until we can fully analyze and design those changes so that they are not too complicated but still give us what we want. So different cover settings or player assignments are not out of the realm of future possibilities, but we also have to figure out where those settings belong. In some cases, we could split defensive settings to more control, but that might not have the desired affect. For instance, we could split rushing to Inside and Outside, and while that increases the chance you could make the right call, it also increases the chance you can make the wrong call. Right now, it's enough for your defense to call a rush defense against a run whether it be inside or outside. I would also say that the offense generally has the advantage in 2.0 and even in 1.0, so let's let beta do it's job and determine then if it's too great of an advantage.

Another difference between 3.0 pass distribution and 1.0, if you have a stud TE and a stud deep WR, you can target one or the other most just by setting the play to target more short passes or more long passes (assuming you set your TE to get most short passes and your WR to get most long passes). You could not do this in 1.0. It was an all-or-nothing pass distribution.

Just so everyone knows....(Those of you who never played football cough cough Norbert ) When a team runs the ball in real life unless its on the goal line with an inch to go every gap has player assigned to stop the run inside or outside. So technically the current system is correct but not having to assign to stop the run outside or up middle. By just determining its a run in its self is correct. Thanks for the updates Norbert!

Posted by choochoo on 1/22/2013 7:59:00 PM (view original):When do teams switch OL during drives? Am I missing something here...why in the world do we need more than one depth chart for OL?

I totally agree.

So, we can switch out OL depending on whether the play is a run or a pass (which is totally ridiculous and unrealistic), but we can't target the receivers we want to on pass plays (which every team from Pop Warner to the NFL does). Makes sense.

The ability to set up different formation sets with different OL depth charts was not the driving point for the way it is designed, but rather the design allows that to happen. The probability and effectiveness of someone trying to recruit enough OL to have that degree of specialization is low enough that I don't feel we need restrictions on it.

Personnel changes on field already have issues with being unrealistic, so I think this is more a matter of working on that all at once if we feel it adds to the game.

You can control who you throw to, but it's a combination of formation sets and depth charts, not just setting it for each formation. The only difference between 1.0 and 3.0 will be that your backup WR when he comes in will be targeted the same as the starter, and that's something we can work on modifying if we find it is a problem.

As far as offense having an advantage, they do have an advantage only because defense is set against each offensive formation while offense can run multiple plays out of each formation. I'm concerned about adding defensive settings only because there are already so many settings you have to set. I'd like to get these offensive and defensive settings working first and then look at expanding them. If it becomes apparent that defense is way outclassed against offense during beta, then we might look at adding some features then. Otherwise, I would like to hold off on them until we can fully analyze and design those changes so that they are not too complicated but still give us what we want. So different cover settings or player assignments are not out of the realm of future possibilities, but we also have to figure out where those settings belong. In some cases, we could split defensive settings to more control, but that might not have the desired affect. For instance, we could split rushing to Inside and Outside, and while that increases the chance you could make the right call, it also increases the chance you can make the wrong call. Right now, it's enough for your defense to call a rush defense against a run whether it be inside or outside. I would also say that the offense generally has the advantage in 2.0 and even in 1.0, so let's let beta do it's job and determine then if it's too great of an advantage.

Two things on this.

1. The offense being able to shuttle in linemen for run or pass is beyond stupid unless the defense is going to be able to do the same based on the offenses subs. Remember, now in football if the offense subs, the ref stands over the ball until the defense is given the same chance.

2. Some of the people who play this game enjoy defense. Perhaps we should limit the offensive settings and expand the defensive ones. . . now listen to how asinine that sounds. Why afford that ability to one side of the ball?

Posted by stingray002 on 1/23/2013 9:46:00 PM (view original):To the best of my knowledge, no real-life team changes offensive lineman based on what play they are going to run.

This was the major complaint surrounding the GD 1.0, but GD 2.0 perhaps went a little too far and made the OL too generic. Perhaps Norbert's idea of OL (C/G) being differentiated from OL (T) with different attribute weakness and strengths for run inside or outside, pass protection will provide some variation. If the defense is able to designate an inside pass rush or outside pass rush, an inside run stop or outside run stop, then changing placement of the OL based on play call may lead to as many mistakes on the offense as mis-matches in their favor. As long as player attributes can be designated for offensive and defensive players so that no matter how many OL you switch the Def could still find a way to over match the OL - it may work. Plus - if the attributes for pass/run/inside/outside are different enough - it would be hard to get enough good OL to rotate in and maintain quality.

My take - wait for beta - and be very critical of how we want the line play to work.